I am particularly concerned to get a little more information on the subject-matter of the question which I put to the Minister to-day, because it would seem to me, from the Minister's attitude, that we are apparently at the beginning of a new phase in the suppression of responsible, constructive and urgently necessary political suggestions. It is necessary that we should have some indication if that is so and, to the extent that there is any element of that kind in the present tendency, it is essential that we should understand its meaning and its intent.
My constituency executive, at its monthly meeting at the beginning of the month, considered some of the difficulties under which the people in the City of Dublin are labouring and, naturally, prominent among the matters under their consideration was the question of the bread supply—the inadequacy of it and the fact that very many people were quite unable to get the 80 per cent. of their normal supplies that the Minister for Supplies declared was available—that he reiterated to-day was available when he stated that in the shops more than 8O per cent. of the normal supplies of bread was available. The executive issued this report to the Press:
"The monthly meeting of the Fine Gael North-East Dublin Constituency Executive was held in the North Star Hotel, Amiens Street, on Tuesday evening, Mr. M. Corcoran presiding. In view of the fact that the difficulties experienced by the poorer classes in the city, in connection with bread distribution, were increasing rather than disappearing, it was decided to protest to the Minister that, as bread rationing had not been proceeded with, an immediate inquiry into the causes bringing about bread queues and into the excessive shortage in bread supplies reaching the poorer parts of the city should be held at once, and the proper supply made available under such conditions as will obviate the queue hardships. In connection with the new cut announced in the sugar ration, it was complained that very many people were quite unable to obtain the previous ration of 1 lb. per person. It was decided to direct the attention of the Minister to this fact and ascertain what steps were going to be taken to secure that the new ration now fixed would be made available to everybody."
The circumstances in which my executive had to consider the question, the circumstances in which they prepared that report, drawing the attention of the Minister for Supplies to the matter, and then in the normal way issued to the Press a statement of that part of their proceedings which they considered of public importance, are fairly well known.
The House remembers that on the 26th February the Minister for Supplies broadcast that, from the following day, only 80 per cent. of the normal bread supplies would be available. They are aware of the great confusion that took place in the City of Dublin as a result of that; that many people were quite unable to get bread supplies over the following week-end, and that that state of affairs continued on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. On Wednesday, 4th March, I was given permission by the Chair, as a matter of urgent public importance, to refer to the conditions that existed in the City of Dublin. That matter was discussed at considerable length here. The Minister's attitude then, and in questions a day or two afterwards, was to the effect that the position had improved. He complained that some difficulties were created by Deputies not co-operating, and he stated (Parliamentary Debates, 4th March, column 2184):—
"I am asking Deputies, when the Government considers that a course of action by the public is desirable in the public interest, to endeavour for a time, at least, to ensure that the public will act in that way and not to be around seeking evidence of non-co-operation or difficulties in order to promote public discontent, but to endeavour, for the time at any rate, to give the Government plan an opportunity of working."
I raised that matter on the 4th March because it was a matter of urgency.
Anybody connected with the City of Dublin knows what the conditions have been during the last month. The Minister for Supplies told us to-day that in the bakers' shops more than 80 per cent. of the normal supplies is available. I asked if the poor people could expect at least 80 per cent. of their normal requirements and the Minister said "Certainly." I said: "They are not getting it" and the Minister replied: "They are." Following a statement in the Press based on reports stated to have been given to the Minister for Supplies by some of his inspectors, I received a letter from the secretary of my constituency executive, dated 14th April in which she says:—
"My own family were allowed only two loaves for Saturday and Sunday—
that is a family of six or seven—
"A family of seven, whom I know, are allowed only two loaves per day.... But the inspectors did not know (or perhaps they did not want to know) that the maximum amount given to any of the people in the queues was two loaves. Some of those people had large families and afterwards had to tramp around the city visiting all the small shops looking for more bread."
After allowing a month to elapse from the time of the debate here on the 4th March, my executive found it necessary to discuss this matter again and to make suggestions and it is very puzzling to us that the Minister is able to say, in the light of what we know, what he said to-day, that 80 per cent. of the normal supplies is available in all the shops.
The Minister responsible for the censorship refused to allow the Press to publish any part of the report of my executive that dealt with bread and completely cut out all reference to bread, the reference being, as I quoted:—
"That we ask the Minister, as a result of the continuing difficulties, that he should hold an immediate inquiry into the causes bringing about bread queues and into the excessive shortage in bread supplies."
The Minister tells us that he decided that that would not be published because he did not want to have any added cause for public panic in the situation. I asked him under what section he stopped this publication and he replied:—
"The portion relating to bread queues was forbidden publication in accordance with the powers of censorship conferred by Section 2 (1) of the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, and Emergency Powers (No. 151) Order, 1942."
Section 2 (1) of the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, says:—
"The Government may, whenever and so often as they think fit, make by order (in this Act referred to as an emergency Order) such provisions as are, in the opinion of the Government, necessary or expedient for securing the public safety or the preservation of the State, or for the maintenance of public order, or for the provision and control of supplies and services essential to the life of the community."
I want to know from the Minister whether, in deleting the portion stating that a responsible political executive in the City of Dublin called upon the Minister for Supplies to institute an immediate inquiry into the position with regard to the queues and the shortage of bread reaching the poorer parts of the city, he did so because of public safety or because of the preservation of the State or because of the maintenance of public order or the provision and control of supplies and services. I think it is important that we should know for which of these reasons he refused to allow the suggestions in the report to be published. The only paragraph that I can find in Emergency Powers (No. 151) Order, which might have reference to it, is paragraph 6 (1) (a), which is as follows:—
"give directions to the proprietor of a newspaper prohibiting such proprietor from publishing, either permanently or during a specified period, in such newspaper or in any poster or placard in connection with such newspaper any specified matter or any particular class or classes of matter."
I want to ask the Minister whether he had given to the Press any general instruction to say that bread and the difficulties in connection with it in the city were not to be referred to at all. The Censor cut out the reference to bread in the heading of the Press report. He cut out all references to bread in the report that was being inserted in the Press, and I want to know whether that was done because of a general instruction issued to the Press in the city that bread was not to be referred to, and I also want to know, was his Order directed to this particular report alone?
I say that a new phase appears to be developing in the repression of responsible, constructive and urgently necessary political action. The Minister has indicated that if he published the report of the executive it would add to public panic. I think that most Deputies in the City of Dublin take a responsible interest in the situation. My experience in the city, at any rate, has made it easy for me to be in touch with various classes in the city. There are 21 people on that executive: they are closely representative of various phases of Dublin life, and nearly all of them are closely connected with the workers and know the workers themselves as a result of being closely connected with them. I do not think that the Minister can say, either with regard to the people who are members of my executive or myself, acting outside this House or inside this House, that we have shown ourselves in any way irresponsible in dealing with matters. We realise the difficulties that this country is in, and we realise particularly the difficulties that people in the city are in—we are a part of it—and we have no desire except to know the facts and to try to see how these facts had best be approached so that the difficulties of our people may be ameliorated and lessened. We have no interest in what the Government are doing beyond seeing that the Government do their part to make things easy, and we have no interest, in present circumstances, except to make it easy for the Government to know how these things can best be approached. I am quite aware, of course, that Ministers have not given us credit for that.
When, about this time last year, I had occasion to draw attention to the exorbitant prices that were being charged for coal in the city, and when I pointed out that between January and February, when the import price of coal had gone up by 1/5 or 1/8, there was an increase in the price of coal to those who were serving the poorest parts of the city of 11/- a ton, with a consequent greater increase in price to the poorer classes of people who were buying coal, and when I systematically brought the facts before the House here in such a way that the Minister for Supplies could not deny them, what was his answer? According to column 575 of the Dáil Debates of 12th March, 1941, the Minister for Supplies, Mr. Lemass, said that I could do my damnedest to try to cause discontent amongst the poor of Dublin. He went on to say:—
"He can go out with his red flag to cause revolution if he likes, but he will not succeed, because the Government will expose his tactics on every occasion."
Again, when, on the 4th March of this year, we were discussing the bread situation, the Minister stated:—
"A very large part of the difficulty in relation to bread supplies in Dublin was due to the fact that we did not get that atmosphere of acceptance and co-operation created through the co-operation of public representatives."
I pointed out at the time—although the Minister for Supplies denied it— that the Minister was charging public representatives with interfering with his plan, but that was what he said: that it was due to lack of co-operation by public representatives in the City of Dublin. Accordingly, I say that the attitude of the Ministry has been to react against the presentation of facts here and the discussion of facts here. But we go a very big step further along the road of misrepresentation and suppression when the Minister for Co-ordination of Defensive Measures excises from the report I mentioned all reference to bread. He told me, in reply to the question this morning, that he did not suppress that part of the report which dealt with sugar. He said that that was suppressed by the newspaper concerned. Well, I am grateful to a newspaper that declined to report that the constituency executive for north-east Dublin met and had nothing to say about anything except sugar. That would have been a misrepresentation of the situation.
Now, that report was issued to the Press, not to make political capital out of it, but to inspire public confidence, and if we are to have suppression of public statements or documents issued by responsible political bodies on questions that concern vital and urgent interests of the people, then the Minister may expect that you may run into panic all the sooner. In view of the present difficulties under which the people are suffering, nothing could be more calculated to inspire calm, to inspire confidence, and to inspire hope than seeing that their public representatives and those who maintain political organisations in the country—organisations upon which this Parliament rests and is built up—are taking a lively interest in the conditions in the country and showing that they know what these conditions are and that they are making a practical approach to seeing that they are properly attended to. So far from creating panic in the City of Dublin with regard to queues, so far from increasing the queues, so far from increasing the irritation of those who were not able to get the normal supplies of bread that the Minister for Supplies says were there, the publication of that statement from a responsible Dublin executive would have assisted to calm the people and inspire confidence.
As well as getting some more detailed information as to the powers and the lines on which he is working, I want to know who is responsible for the actual suppression. Order No. 151 gives a whole list of people who can be the competent authority for suppression purposes. The Minister has indicated that he sent part of my executive's report to the Minister for Supplies, and that he thought that good enough. We had made suitable representations direct to the Minister for Supplies. I want to know if it was that Minister who asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures to suppress this. If not, was it the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defensive Measures himself? If not, who in the censorship machinery did it, and under what direct instruction, whether of a general or particular nature, was he acting?
